As most of the world realises, climate change is real, potentially catastrophic, and caused/exacerbated by human activity (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions). The evidence is overwhelming.
Climate change should be an apolitical issue. It affects all people, regardless of location, economic status, or political stripe, and demands action from all people. Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be a non-partisan, politically neutral, shared necessity. Should be.
There are opponents, usually on the conservative side of the spectrum, who resist any reasonable action on climate. Among this group of detractors, deniers and do-nothings are those who dismiss climate activists as politically driven opportunists – wanting more to advance a socialist revolution rather than to save the planet. How can they say this? Because climate activists are doing everything they can to portray climate action as an element of a socialist revolution. Their objective appears to be a radical transformation of society (i.e. “System Change”), bundling action on climate with action on social issues. They aren’t helping. Instead of convincing those who need to be convinced that combatting climate change is not a radical idea, the activists seem hell-bent on making it a radical idea.
“Marge, come here! There’s money coming out of the walls!”
Doug Ford’s Conservative government is spending millions of Ontario tax dollars to complain about a federal carbon tax, which he argues will cost Ontarians dearly. But, the television ads which have cluttered the airwaves for the past few weeks show a different picture – a puzzled man sitting on a sofa reading a newspaper, watching a stream of cash spurting from a heat vent onto his living room floor. A stunned-looking woman filling up with gas being treated to a cascade of coins flowing from the pump. Grocery store shoppers side-stepping the money shooting out from between ketchup bottles. Contrary to DoFo’s intentions, the ads show that under a federal carbon tax, cash streams in, not out.
To argue against the scientific conclusion that human activity is fueling climate change and that it will likely result in catastrophic consequences, is to put oneself in the same bracket of scientific credibility as flat earthers, young earth creationists, and Gwyneth Paltrow. The overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists have determined that the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere will lead to more severe weather events, unprecedented droughts and floods, a rise in sea level, and record high temperatures. It’s already happening, and it’s projected to get worse. So how are conservative leaders dealing with the issue? By hiding from it.Continue reading “Risky business: How conservatives are rolling the dice on climate change”
Donald Trump likes to characterize people and institutions using simple repeatable epithets that end up sticking like glue – Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Failing New York Times, Weak Jeb, Fake CNN, and now Leaker Comey. These simple insults resonate.
In search of a simple tag to put on Donald Trump, I Iooked at the ones already in play – bully, misogynist, blowhard, ignorant, incompetent, etc. None really captures The Donald fully and completely. He can be any and/or all of the above at any given time. I came to realize that there is, however, one term that does describe the 45th President simply and accurately – one that he himself has used when he wants to completely dismiss an adversary. The word is “loser”. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Donald Trump is a Loser. With a capital “L”. Continue reading “Donald Trump, Loser.”
While you’ve made your reputation as an internationally-renowned cartoonist, whose Dilbert characters have entertained millions (including me) over more than 25 years, you’ve now thrown your voice into the discussion about anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) climate change. It’s not going well. Your positions seem to be ever-changing, eager to latch onto red herrings, politically-driven arguments, and “alternative facts.” Scott Adams’ Blog now appears to reflect skepticism of the science and the scientists’ ability to form conclusions based on the science – so much so that the blogs are now being quoted by true climate science deniers to support their arguments. I’m writing this to try and get you back on track, out of the clutches of a very powerful, very manipulative climate science denial industry. And, to have you focus more on Dilbert and Wally.